Europeans shut borders, block bridges, to halt migrant surge

[simon43]

The Maltese are amongst the nicest people in the world,so why you think otherwise i don't know.

Sigh.... sarcasm, sarcasm....

[Scott]

Let's get the wording right.

A refugee is someone fleeing danger. The moment they are out of danger, yet continue to move on from country to country they are migrants.

Hence, there are no 'genuine refugees' in central Europe.

Your wording is still massively wrong. A refugee is someone with a well founded fear of persecution for the 5 reasons set forth in the UN Conventions.

Whatever country a genuine refugee is in does not change this definition.

And exactly what persecution is a person in Calais, trying to enter the UK illegally, facing? What persecution is someone in Denmark facing, as they fight police for their "right" to go to Sweden?

The same applies to the people who have arrived in Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia.

These are not 'genuine refugees' in the eyes of anyone but but the self-styled "progressive" elites and their media toadies.

Your inflammatory statement doesn't change the definition of a refugee.

People are not 'genuine refugees' because you decide they aren't. It also has nothing to do with 'progressive' elites. It is a legal definition and some of the people are refugees and some are not.

Fleeing a war area does not necessarily make you a refugee. It makes you a displaced person and in need of help and protection. Other people, for example those that were opposed to the Assad government are likely to have a well-founded fear of persecution if they are returned. Similarly, Christians living in ISIS controlled areas may be genuine refugees.

[thaibeachlovers]

Let's get the wording right.

A refugee is someone fleeing danger. The moment they are out of danger, yet continue to move on from country to country they are migrants.

Hence, there are no 'genuine refugees' in central Europe.

Your wording is still massively wrong. A refugee is someone with a well founded fear of persecution for the 5 reasons set forth in the UN Conventions.

Whatever country a genuine refugee is in does not change this definition.

And exactly what persecution is a person in Calais, trying to enter the UK illegally, facing? What persecution is someone in Denmark facing, as they fight police for their "right" to go to Sweden?

The same applies to the people who have arrived in Austria, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia.

These are not 'genuine refugees' in the eyes of anyone but but the self-styled "progressive" elites and their media toadies.

The danger they fear is jail and deportation back to the war zone where they came from, without having a chance to reach their destinations.

None of the ones that came from Turkey faced jail or deportation back to Syria, unless they were terrorists or criminals. Some had been there for years.

No, what they fear is being stuck in Serbia or Greece where they won't get all the money they think they will get in the UK, Germany or Sweden.

Can anyone link me to any international agreement whereby an asylum seeker fleeing for their life has the right to select the country of their destination?

[sandyf]

Does anyone here have a good solution to this problem?

Yes, compulsory purchase of Malta as their new island home.

I never trusted the Maltese anyway...

The Maltese are amongst the nicest people in the world,so why you think otherwise i don't know.

Very true.

You have to remember that Malta GC means very little to many.

[thaibeachlovers]

Does anyone here have a good solution to this problem?

Yes, compulsory purchase of Malta as their new island home.

I never trusted the Maltese anyway...

The Maltese are amongst the nicest people in the world,so why you think otherwise i don't know.

Very true.

You have to remember that Malta GC means very little to many.

Old Goons joke-

Q. How do you make a Maltese Cross?

A. Stick a lighted match in his ear.

[newnative]

8.2% Muslim is a huge percentage, especially in a small country like Britain with a fairly wide variety of ethnic and religious groups. With that big percentage of a fragmented population, what's to stop them from demanding at some point that stoning be brought back for adultery and human rights laws be repealed, among other onerous things? May seem far-fetched now but remember the long-term goal of Islam is one World with only one religion--Islam. They are very patient but also very relentless. When they see an opening--like the current disarray and weakness in Europe, they exploit it. And, no, I am not a right wing reactionary--just a liberal realist who doesn't want to find myself living under Islam law.

[nontabury]

8.2% Muslim is a huge percentage, especially in a small country like Britain with a fairly wide variety of ethnic and religious groups. With that big percentage of a fragmented population, what's to stop them from demanding at some point that stoning be brought back for adultery and human rights laws be repealed, among other onerous things? May seem far-fetched now but remember the long-term goal of Islam is one World with only one religion--Islam. They are very patient but also very relentless. When they see an opening--like the current disarray and weakness in Europe, they exploit it. And, no, I am not a right wing reactionary--just a liberal realist who doesn't want to find myself living under Islam law.[/




In the not too distant future it could well be 20%. Then you see what pressure means.

[Steely Dan]

I read on the BBC this morning that EU ministers have voted (majority vote, not unanimous) to distribute 120,000 'genuine' refugees across different EU countries.

But in the same article, it mentions that about 480,000 refugees have already arrived in Europe, with the majority being economic migrants.

Do the EU ministers really think that the economic refugees will willingly return to their home countries?

Stop talking about distributing 120,000 refugees. Add an extra zero to that number and you'll be a lot closer to the reality.

Two zeroes.

As discussed above, you don't need to reach majority Muslims in a population for the previous society model to collapse.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30675

Edited September 23, 2015 by Steely Dan

[simple1]

8.2% Muslim is a huge percentage, especially in a small country like Britain with a fairly wide variety of ethnic and religious groups. With that big percentage of a fragmented population, what's to stop them from demanding at some point that stoning be brought back for adultery and human rights laws be repealed, among other onerous things? May seem far-fetched now but remember the long-term goal of Islam is one World with only one religion--Islam. They are very patient but also very relentless. When they see an opening--like the current disarray and weakness in Europe, they exploit it. And, no, I am not a right wing reactionary--just a liberal realist who doesn't want to find myself living under Islam law.

The general public would not gain sufficient MP's to support a Bill for Sharia Criminal Law and enact legislation overturning centuries of Common Law.

BTW the majority of countries with Sharia Law do not support the extreme punishment to which you refer.

[RockyBeerbelly]

8.2% Muslim is a huge percentage, especially in a small country like Britain with a fairly wide variety of ethnic and religious groups. With that big percentage of a fragmented population, what's to stop them from demanding at some point that stoning be brought back for adultery and human rights laws be repealed, among other onerous things? May seem far-fetched now but remember the long-term goal of Islam is one World with only one religion--Islam. They are very patient but also very relentless. When they see an opening--like the current disarray and weakness in Europe, they exploit it. And, no, I am not a right wing reactionary--just a liberal realist who doesn't want to find myself living under Islam law.

In stead of stoning, Britain can also start giving people lethal injections (which apparently are not so lethal at the moment), just like in the civilized US of A.

Aren't you afraid Newnative that because of the 7% Indians who live in Britain soon "every sister of a man who committed adultery will be sentenced to be gang-raped"? Or that all these people from the West Indies will force every Brit to start smoking dope?

You might not be a right wing reactionary, but a realist you are not either if you think you will find yourself living in Britain under Sharia law. To me it looks like you are ill informed, prejudiced and made scared. Understanding people, their dreams and desires can help you get rid of the fear imposed on you by the (right wing) media and loonies like George W., newcomer Trump, and Cameron.

[Toany]

It is not just the refugees arriving now, but the rest of their families that will have a right to follow them.

[RickBradford]

Understanding people, their dreams and desires can help you get rid of the fear imposed on you by the (right wing) media and loonies like George W., newcomer Trump, and Cameron.

How tiresomely predictable.

If you disagree with a Leftist, they inevitably assume you have been brainwashed by Evil Powers (right-wing of course), because you are too stupid to think for yourself.

It is the only "argument" they ever employ. And the hate figures are always the same: George W Bush, Fox News & Murdoch, the Koch Brothers, Big Oil etc etc.

The Leftists have so much outrage, and so little imagination.

[micmichd]

It is not just the refugees arriving now, but the rest of their families that will have a right to follow them.

So, they'll have their own women and don't need yours, and the teachers don't get jobless.

[Toany]

Yes, but 120,000 could turn into 360,000 or more quite easily

[thaibeachlovers]

It is not just the refugees arriving now, but the rest of their families that will have a right to follow them.

I can understand allowing children to join their parents, but why should old people be allowed to come just because their children are in the west, unless of course they too are genuine refugees.

When I was in the UK, it appeared that old people that never paid a penny tax to Britain were allowed to immigrate to be with their children and get all the freebies like NHS etc.

[simple1]

It is not just the refugees arriving now, but the rest of their families that will have a right to follow them.

I can understand allowing children to join their parents, but why should old people be allowed to come just because their children are in the west, unless of course they too are genuine refugees.

When I was in the UK, it appeared that old people that never paid a penny tax to Britain were allowed to immigrate to be with their children and get all the freebies like NHS etc.

Current UK law permits partner or children under 18 of resettled refugees to apply for entry. However those applying must prove they are under threat in their country of origin or if outside country of origin unable to return. Parent and grandparents can apply in exceptional circumstances, but have to be supported by family in the UK & not be a liability on the public purse.

http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/resettlement-uk

With the UK's commitment to accept an additional 20k refugees from countries bordering Syria I assume similar policy to Australia i.e. minorities (code for mainly non-Muslims). Again parents must demonstrate they are unable to return to country of origin due to fear of persecution and so on.

The current EU policy agreement to accept, over a two year period, 120,000 refugees for resettlement is for refugees located in Italy & Greece.

Edited September 24, 2015 by simple1

[otherstuff1957]

The current EU policy agreement to accept, over a two year period, 120,000 refugees for resettlement is for refugees located in Italy & Greece.

^ Right. All of this arguing is about 120K refugees who have already registered themselves. The EU leaders don't have anything the even resembles a plan for dealing with the 400K refugees who have NOT registered.

[simple1]

The current EU policy agreement to accept, over a two year period, 120,000 refugees for resettlement is for refugees located in Italy & Greece.

^ Right. All of this arguing is about 120K refugees who have already registered themselves. The EU leaders don't have anything the even resembles a plan for dealing with the 400K refugees who have NOT registered.

From my reading Germany & other countries have a huge backlog for registering refugees due to insufficient resources. Within Germany it's not a matter of deliberately not registering as without the necessary paperwork asylum will not be granted. However, It is estimated that at a minimum 40% of applications will be denied due to assessment outcome being 'economic refugees'.

Over the past few months political leaders in the EU have constantly sent out mixed messages that is adding to the confusion, including countries not complying with the Dublin III Regulation.

[Toany]

Maybe Germany would like to take more refugees now that we learn how VW has cheated and poluted the world.

[thaibeachlovers]

It is not just the refugees arriving now, but the rest of their families that will have a right to follow them.

I can understand allowing children to join their parents, but why should old people be allowed to come just because their children are in the west, unless of course they too are genuine refugees.

When I was in the UK, it appeared that old people that never paid a penny tax to Britain were allowed to immigrate to be with their children and get all the freebies like NHS etc.

Current UK law permits partner or children under 18 of resettled refugees to apply for entry. However those applying must prove they are under threat in their country of origin or if outside country of origin unable to return. Parent and grandparents can apply in exceptional circumstances, but have to be supported by family in the UK & not be a liability on the public purse.

http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/resettlement-uk

With the UK's commitment to accept an additional 20k refugees from countries bordering Syria I assume similar policy to Australia i.e. minorities (code for mainly non-Muslims). Again parents must demonstrate they are unable to return to country of origin due to fear of persecution and so on.

The current EU policy agreement to accept, over a two year period, 120,000 refugees for resettlement is for refugees located in Italy & Greece.

The idea that parents or grandparents of resettled refugees/ immigrants should be allowed to settle with their children in the UK is just wrong. They end up getting free NHS treatment regardless of any "rules". We operated on large numbers of Asian ( usually Indian ) old people that had obviously never lived in the UK, and had obviously come to live with their children.

If that has changed, then that's good.

If they are genuine refugees, then they should be supported in camps like all the other thousands of refugees that have no right to settle in the UK or Euro.

[micmichd]

It is not just the refugees arriving now, but the rest of their families that will have a right to follow them.

I can understand allowing children to join their parents, but why should old people be allowed to come just because their children are in the west, unless of course they too are genuine refugees.

When I was in the UK, it appeared that old people that never paid a penny tax to Britain were allowed to immigrate to be with their children and get all the freebies like NHS etc.

Current UK law permits partner or children under 18 of resettled refugees to apply for entry. However those applying must prove they are under threat in their country of origin or if outside country of origin unable to return. Parent and grandparents can apply in exceptional circumstances, but have to be supported by family in the UK & not be a liability on the public purse.

http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/resettlement-uk

With the UK's commitment to accept an additional 20k refugees from countries bordering Syria I assume similar policy to Australia i.e. minorities (code for mainly non-Muslims). Again parents must demonstrate they are unable to return to country of origin due to fear of persecution and so on.

The current EU policy agreement to accept, over a two year period, 120,000 refugees for resettlement is for refugees located in Italy & Greece.

The idea that parents or grandparents of resettled refugees/ immigrants should be allowed to settle with their children in the UK is just wrong. They end up getting free NHS treatment regardless of any "rules". We operated on large numbers of Asian ( usually Indian ) old people that had obviously never lived in the UK, and had obviously come to live with their children.

If that has changed, then that's good.

If they are genuine refugees, then they should be supported in camps like all the other thousands of refugees that have no right to settle in the UK or Euro.

Medical care costs money, regardless of whether in camps or outside. There's not many old people among those refugees, Syria is not India.

In most European countries there is no such thing as NHS, you have to pay for your health-insurance. In Germany a health insurance is mandatory, and the contribution to health insurance is automatically taken away from your wages. Of course, a refugee must be allowed to work to contribute.

[thaibeachlovers]

I can understand allowing children to join their parents, but why should old people be allowed to come just because their children are in the west, unless of course they too are genuine refugees.

When I was in the UK, it appeared that old people that never paid a penny tax to Britain were allowed to immigrate to be with their children and get all the freebies like NHS etc.

Current UK law permits partner or children under 18 of resettled refugees to apply for entry. However those applying must prove they are under threat in their country of origin or if outside country of origin unable to return. Parent and grandparents can apply in exceptional circumstances, but have to be supported by family in the UK & not be a liability on the public purse.

http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/resettlement-uk

With the UK's commitment to accept an additional 20k refugees from countries bordering Syria I assume similar policy to Australia i.e. minorities (code for mainly non-Muslims). Again parents must demonstrate they are unable to return to country of origin due to fear of persecution and so on.

The current EU policy agreement to accept, over a two year period, 120,000 refugees for resettlement is for refugees located in Italy & Greece.

The idea that parents or grandparents of resettled refugees/ immigrants should be allowed to settle with their children in the UK is just wrong. They end up getting free NHS treatment regardless of any "rules". We operated on large numbers of Asian ( usually Indian ) old people that had obviously never lived in the UK, and had obviously come to live with their children.

If that has changed, then that's good.

If they are genuine refugees, then they should be supported in camps like all the other thousands of refugees that have no right to settle in the UK or Euro.

Medical care costs money, regardless of whether in camps or outside. There's not many old people among those refugees, Syria is not India.

In most European countries there is no such thing as NHS, you have to pay for your health-insurance. In Germany a health insurance is mandatory, and the contribution to health insurance is automatically taken away from your wages. Of course, a refugee must be allowed to work to contribute.

In the UK you pay National Insurance and get health care without having to pay at the point of use.

The German system sounds the same.

[micmichd]

I can understand allowing children to join their parents, but why should old people be allowed to come just because their children are in the west, unless of course they too are genuine refugees.
When I was in the UK, it appeared that old people that never paid a penny tax to Britain were allowed to immigrate to be with their children and get all the freebies like NHS etc.

Current UK law permits partner or children under 18 of resettled refugees to apply for entry. However those applying must prove they are under threat in their country of origin or if outside country of origin unable to return. Parent and grandparents can apply in exceptional circumstances, but have to be supported by family in the UK & not be a liability on the public purse.

http://www.refugeelegalaidinformation.org/resettlement-uk


With the UK's commitment to accept an additional 20k refugees from countries bordering Syria I assume similar policy to Australia i.e. minorities (code for mainly non-Muslims). Again parents must demonstrate they are unable to return to country of origin due to fear of persecution and so on.

The current EU policy agreement to accept, over a two year period, 120,000 refugees for resettlement is for refugees located in Italy & Greece.

The idea that parents or grandparents of resettled refugees/ immigrants should be allowed to settle with their children in the UK is just wrong. They end up getting free NHS treatment regardless of any "rules". We operated on large numbers of Asian ( usually Indian ) old people that had obviously never lived in the UK, and had obviously come to live with their children.
If that has changed, then that's good.
If they are genuine refugees, then they should be supported in camps like all the other thousands of refugees that have no right to settle in the UK or Euro.

Medical care costs money, regardless of whether in camps or outside. There's not many old people among those refugees, Syria is not India.
In most European countries there is no such thing as NHS, you have to pay for your health-insurance. In Germany a health insurance is mandatory, and the contribution to health insurance is automatically taken away from your wages. Of course, a refugee must be allowed to work to contribute.

In the UK you pay National Insurance and get health care without having to pay at the point of use.
The German system sounds the same.

Yes, sounds like German Social Security. The young and healthy are supposed to pay for the old and sick, health care on a family base ('Familienmitversicherung')

[Steely Dan]

That there should be any disagreement whatsoever about shutting the borders is staggering considering how well integration has worked in Germany. Everyone should take their 'fair share' eh Merkel. Look into your own backyard before preaching to others.

http://10news.dk/?p=1826

Study on “Muslims in Germany”: 94 percent is against integration, 24 percent of young Muslims inclined to violence, 51 percent think Islam will prevail on Earth

[Gandonsi]

8.2% Muslim is a huge percentage, especially in a small country like Britain with a fairly wide variety of ethnic and religious groups. With that big percentage of a fragmented population, what's to stop them from demanding at some point that stoning be brought back for adultery and human rights laws be repealed, among other onerous things? May seem far-fetched now but remember the long-term goal of Islam is one World with only one religion--Islam. They are very patient but also very relentless. When they see an opening--like the current disarray and weakness in Europe, they exploit it. And, no, I am not a right wing reactionary--just a liberal realist who doesn't want to find myself living under Islam law.

This is my problem with so many Muslim migrants/refugees being let in. Some are able to integrate into society well and truly follow a pacifist version of their religion but there have been others already who bring their extremist practices over and when we let so many in, we don't know what type of extremists we're letting in. We already have a problem with the native Muslims, many ISIS militants have been bred in this country in mosques themselves. Behind those close doors we don't know what self-governing laws they're practising but there's been many "honour killings" in the past.

According to one report, there were thousands of "honour attacks" in the UK back in 2011 and even barring this we have a religion which is passive aggressive in its treatment to women trying to say that's it acceptable for them to be covered head to toe. UK should go the French route and ban the wearing of this type of clothing that covers a woman's face. It's the 21st century for God's sake.

When people come over here, they need to learn to abide by our rules. So primitive stone-age customs can be left in the Middle East such as most of what Sharia Law involves.

I respect all religions but Islam, unlike the others, still has much progressing to do.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Gandonsi

[thaibeachlovers]

8.2% Muslim is a huge percentage, especially in a small country like Britain with a fairly wide variety of ethnic and religious groups. With that big percentage of a fragmented population, what's to stop them from demanding at some point that stoning be brought back for adultery and human rights laws be repealed, among other onerous things? May seem far-fetched now but remember the long-term goal of Islam is one World with only one religion--Islam. They are very patient but also very relentless. When they see an opening--like the current disarray and weakness in Europe, they exploit it. And, no, I am not a right wing reactionary--just a liberal realist who doesn't want to find myself living under Islam law.

This is my problem with so many Muslim migrants/refugees being let in. Some are able to integrate into society well and truly follow a pacifist version of their religion but there have been others already who bring their extremist practices over and when we let so many in, we don't know what type of extremists we're letting in. We already have a problem with the native Muslims, many ISIS militants have been bred in this country in mosques themselves. Behind those close doors we don't know what self-governing laws they're practising but there's been many "honour killings" in the past.

According to one report, there were thousands of "honour attacks" in the UK back in 2011 and even barring this we have a religion which is passive aggressive in its treatment to women trying to say that's it acceptable for them to be covered head to toe. UK should go the French route and ban the wearing of this type of clothing that covers a woman's face. It's the 21st century for God's sake.

When people come over here, they need to learn to abide by our rules. So primitive stone-age customs can be left in the Middle East such as most of what Sharia Law involves.

I respect all religions but Islam, unlike the others, still has much progressing to do.

Women covering is nothing to do with Islam. It is a purely CULTURAL custom. That is why some Islamic women don't cover at all. Different countries have different customs in relation to females covering, but only the fact that mainly Islamic countries still treat women like that fools people into believing that it is religious. Of course the religious zealots that indoctrinate their congregation are not going to admit that and pretend that to be against covering is anti Islamic.

That is why we see stupid western women wearing tents, because they believe the fairy tale given to them by Islamic preachers.

[RockyBeerbelly]

8.2% Muslim is a huge percentage, especially in a small country like Britain with a fairly wide variety of ethnic and religious groups. With that big percentage of a fragmented population, what's to stop them from demanding at some point that stoning be brought back for adultery and human rights laws be repealed, among other onerous things? May seem far-fetched now but remember the long-term goal of Islam is one World with only one religion--Islam. They are very patient but also very relentless. When they see an opening--like the current disarray and weakness in Europe, they exploit it. And, no, I am not a right wing reactionary--just a liberal realist who doesn't want to find myself living under Islam law.

This is my problem with so many Muslim migrants/refugees being let in. Some are able to integrate into society well and truly follow a pacifist version of their religion but there have been others already who bring their extremist practices over and when we let so many in, we don't know what type of extremists we're letting in. We already have a problem with the native Muslims, many ISIS militants have been bred in this country in mosques themselves. Behind those close doors we don't know what self-governing laws they're practising but there's been many "honour killings" in the past.

According to one report, there were thousands of "honour attacks" in the UK back in 2011 and even barring this we have a religion which is passive aggressive in its treatment to women trying to say that's it acceptable for them to be covered head to toe. UK should go the French route and ban the wearing of this type of clothing that covers a woman's face. It's the 21st century for God's sake.

When people come over here, they need to learn to abide by our rules. So primitive stone-age customs can be left in the Middle East such as most of what Sharia Law involves.

I respect all religions but Islam, unlike the others, still has much progressing to do.

This is an opinion that doesn't make much sense to me (and which is clearly misguiding people or not understanding the situation).

Question: do you actually understand why there are refugees in EU? As it doesn't seem you do, let me explain. There is a brutal war in Syria where both ISIS and the Assad regime are murdering Syrian citizens. These citizens are fleeing these regimes through a dangerous, long and expense journey. And your thought is that as soon as they arrive in the country where they want to seek asylum, they will join ISIS so they can become a militant? Really?? Then please explain, why the hell did they leave Syria in the first place???

Wrt "the many" Muslim refugees being let why not look at the numbers: This year there are about half a million refugees sofar (its actually less btw). This is a mere 0.06% of the EU population! Is this a number which you translate as being overrun??

[thaibeachlovers]

8.2% Muslim is a huge percentage, especially in a small country like Britain with a fairly wide variety of ethnic and religious groups. With that big percentage of a fragmented population, what's to stop them from demanding at some point that stoning be brought back for adultery and human rights laws be repealed, among other onerous things? May seem far-fetched now but remember the long-term goal of Islam is one World with only one religion--Islam. They are very patient but also very relentless. When they see an opening--like the current disarray and weakness in Europe, they exploit it. And, no, I am not a right wing reactionary--just a liberal realist who doesn't want to find myself living under Islam law.

This is my problem with so many Muslim migrants/refugees being let in. Some are able to integrate into society well and truly follow a pacifist version of their religion but there have been others already who bring their extremist practices over and when we let so many in, we don't know what type of extremists we're letting in. We already have a problem with the native Muslims, many ISIS militants have been bred in this country in mosques themselves. Behind those close doors we don't know what self-governing laws they're practising but there's been many "honour killings" in the past.

According to one report, there were thousands of "honour attacks" in the UK back in 2011 and even barring this we have a religion which is passive aggressive in its treatment to women trying to say that's it acceptable for them to be covered head to toe. UK should go the French route and ban the wearing of this type of clothing that covers a woman's face. It's the 21st century for God's sake.

When people come over here, they need to learn to abide by our rules. So primitive stone-age customs can be left in the Middle East such as most of what Sharia Law involves.

I respect all religions but Islam, unlike the others, still has much progressing to do.

This is an opinion that doesn't make much sense to me (and which is clearly misguiding people or not understanding the situation).

Question: do you actually understand why there are refugees in EU? As it doesn't seem you do, let me explain. There is a brutal war in Syria where both ISIS and the Assad regime are murdering Syrian citizens. These citizens are fleeing these regimes through a dangerous, long and expense journey. And your thought is that as soon as they arrive in the country where they want to seek asylum, they will join ISIS so they can become a militant? Really?? Then please explain, why the hell did they leave Syria in the first place???

Wrt "the many" Muslim refugees being let why not look at the numbers: This year there are about half a million refugees sofar (its actually less btw). This is a mere 0.06% of the EU population! Is this a number which you translate as being overrun??

You don't seem to understand that IS are sending terrorists while they are more likely to be able to enter western countries without being discovered. Then they will set up cells to carry out atrocities in the future.

While overall, the number of refugees are not large in comparison to population, hundreds of thousands of refugees can't be housed when there are not enough houses for the citizens of the country, never mind not enough school places and jobs available.

[pedro01]

8.2% Muslim is a huge percentage, especially in a small country like Britain with a fairly wide variety of ethnic and religious groups. With that big percentage of a fragmented population, what's to stop them from demanding at some point that stoning be brought back for adultery and human rights laws be repealed, among other onerous things? May seem far-fetched now but remember the long-term goal of Islam is one World with only one religion--Islam. They are very patient but also very relentless. When they see an opening--like the current disarray and weakness in Europe, they exploit it. And, no, I am not a right wing reactionary--just a liberal realist who doesn't want to find myself living under Islam law.

This is my problem with so many Muslim migrants/refugees being let in. Some are able to integrate into society well and truly follow a pacifist version of their religion but there have been others already who bring their extremist practices over and when we let so many in, we don't know what type of extremists we're letting in. We already have a problem with the native Muslims, many ISIS militants have been bred in this country in mosques themselves. Behind those close doors we don't know what self-governing laws they're practising but there's been many "honour killings" in the past.

According to one report, there were thousands of "honour attacks" in the UK back in 2011 and even barring this we have a religion which is passive aggressive in its treatment to women trying to say that's it acceptable for them to be covered head to toe. UK should go the French route and ban the wearing of this type of clothing that covers a woman's face. It's the 21st century for God's sake.

When people come over here, they need to learn to abide by our rules. So primitive stone-age customs can be left in the Middle East such as most of what Sharia Law involves.

I respect all religions but Islam, unlike the others, still has much progressing to do.

Women covering is nothing to do with Islam. It is a purely CULTURAL custom. That is why some Islamic women don't cover at all. Different countries have different customs in relation to females covering, but only the fact that mainly Islamic countries still treat women like that fools people into believing that it is religious. Of course the religious zealots that indoctrinate their congregation are not going to admit that and pretend that to be against covering is anti Islamic.

That is why we see stupid western women wearing tents, because they believe the fairy tale given to them by Islamic preachers.

So when Islamic preachers in Islamic countries tell followers of Islam to cover up in the name of Islam, that is nothing to do with Islam?

[chuckd]

A couple of articles concerning the migrant surge welcoming Germany to the Middle East.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Rape and child abuse 'are rife in German refugee camps': Unsegregated conditions blamed as women are 'seen as fair game' in overcrowded migrant centres

By ALLAN HALL IN BERLIN FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 18:23 GMT, 24 September 2015 | UPDATED: 04:37 GMT, 25 September 2015

A culture of rape and sexual abuse is being allowed to take hold in asylum centres across Germany as Europe struggles to cope with the migrant crisis, it has been alleged,

Women’s rights groups and politicians have highlighted assaults against women and children in at least one camp.

And they suggest such incidents may be widespread, with many going unreported to the police.

Campaigners also claimed some men saw unaccompanied women as ‘fair game’, and also blamed conditions in which occupants were unsegregated by gender or nationality.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3247831/Rape-child-abuse-rife-overcrowded-asylum-centres-huge-surge-migrants-pushes-Germany-s-services-breaking-point-claim-womens-rights-groups-politicians.html#ixzz3mp6Zbx2e

--------------------------------------------------------------------

and then this is what Germany is doing to its own citizens.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

German woman threatened with eviction to make way for refugees

A 51-year-old German woman is being evicted from her home of 16 years to make way for refugees, with shelters already full across the country

By Justin Huggler in Berlin

4:07PM BST 25 Sep 2015

A woman in Germany is being evicted from her home of 16 years to make way for asylum-seekers, amid growing concerns over how Germany will find accommodation for the hundreds of thousands of refugees flooding into the country.

Bettina Halbey, a 51-year-old nurse, has lived alone in her flat in the small western German town of Nieheim since her children grew up.

On September 1, she received a letter from her landlord, the local municipality, telling her the building was being turned into a refugee shelter and she had until next May to leave.

More here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11891631/German-woman-threatened-with-eviction-to-make-way-for-refugees.html